UNDERSTANDING LOT - VAYEIRA

Avraham Avinu’s nephew, Lot’s is one of the most enigmatic characters in the Torah. There are a number of instances in the Torah which indicate that he possessed a certain level of righteousness and a number of other places which suggest that he had many flaws. On the one hand he is one of the only people that join Avraham on his spiritual journey to Eretz Yisroel, showing a sense of self-sacrifice and willingness to learn from Avraham; He consistently excels in chesed, even risking his life in Sodom to host strangers; He is complimented by Chazal for his self-control in not revealing that Avraham and Sarah were married; He even eats matzos on Pesach ! Moreover, he never seems to commits a clear sin b’meizid. On the other hand, he shows a great love of money and znus which causes him to leave Avraham and settle in the evil city of Sodom ; He lets himself be made drunk and seduced by his younger daughter after he realized what had happened the previous night with his elder daughter. His shepherds are moreh heter to allow their sheep graze on other people’s land; And worst of all, when he separates from Avraham, the Medrash tells us that he says, “I don’t want Avraham or his G-d. ” This is particularly difficult, because we see, that even after this strong statement, Lot seemed to still have a recognition that Hashem was the true G-d .

To answer this question it is instructive to turn to an incident in Parshas Vayishlach, Yaakov Avinu, on his return to Eretz Yisroel, sends a message to his hostile brother Esav, “I lived with Lavan.” Rashi elaborates on Yaakov’s words: “I lived with the evil Lavan and I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways. ” Yaakov is telling Esav that he has maintained his righteousness despite living with Lavan for so many years. However, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman zt”l asks, why did Yaakov need to say the second part of the sentence about not learning from Lavan’s evil ways; If Yaakov kept all the mitzvos then obviously he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways! He answers that, in truth, shemiras hamitvos and learning from the ways of reshaim do not necessarily go hand in hand. A person can keep all the mitzvos and nevertheless be influenced by values that are alien to Torah . A person can know the truth; that there is a G-d and that He gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Har Sinai and that this recognition requires following His commands. As a result, he grudgingly accepts that he must follow the Torah because if he does not then the consequences will be very unpleasant. However, his sheifos in life do not coincide with the Torah’s view, and he may devote his life to such goals as making money, hedonism, or acquiring power and honor, and all the while he would not explicitly break any laws of the Torah.

Lot represents the classic example of this duality. This is illustrated by a glaring contradiction in the passukim at the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha. The Torah, describing Avraham’s departure to Eretz Yisroel, says that, “Avraham went as Hashem had commanded him, and Lot went with him.” The very next passuk says that, “Avraham took Sarai his wife and his nephew Lot. ” At first Lot went willingly with Avraham, but then Avraham needed to take him forcefully. It seems that there were two conflicting forces guiding Lot’s actions. He recognized that there was one G-d and that this truth required accompanying Avraham on his spiritual journey. However, whilst knowing the truth, his desires in life did not necessarily include leaving behind his whole life for a spiritual quest, he loved money and traveling as a pauper did not promise great riches!

With this explanation we can approach Lot with a whole new level of understanding. He recognized the truth in Avraham’s teachings and the obligations that accompanied this recognition. Consequently he never blatantly transgressed any Torah mitzvos. He actively observed Pesach and, hachnasas orchim because he knew that was required of him . However, his sheifos in life were NOT to achieve closeness to G-d and to develop himself spiritually. Instead he was driven by a desire for pleasures, epitomized by money and znus. What happens when a person is faced with this dichotomy - he knows that he must keep the Torah because it is true but he is driven by goals that conflict with it. Lot’s actions answer this question; He could never bring himself to sin but deep down he wanted to fulfill his desires. Consequently, even after he became aware of what had happened with his elder daughter, he nevertheless allowed himself to be seduced the next night in order that he could fulfill his taiva without blatantly doing so. Another outcome of Lot’s character is that he made life decisions that clearly indicated where his heart lay; he preferred to leave Avraham and live in Sodom, showing a clear preference of love of gashmius over ruchnius. It is hard to say that this action is technically forbidden but it clearly reflects where his desires lay. We can also now understand how Lot could say that he wanted no part in Avraham of Hashem and yet continue to observe certain mitzvos! This statement was a rejection of Avraham’s hashkafas hachaim that emphasized closeness to G-d and rejection of base physicality. However, Lot still knew that there was a G-d whose instructions had to be followed. When a person lives his life acknowledging the truth of Torah but simultaneously pursuing goals alien to spirituality, the inevitable result is that his descendants and students will follow in his path and probably degenerate even further.

This also explains the behavior of Lot’s shepherds. The Torah does not say that Lot explicitly instructed them to steal, however it is they were strongly influenced by his love of wealth. Therefore they placed greater priority to that goal than avoiding gezel, and as a consequence they created a dubious excuse to justify their thievery. This dichotomy is also apparent in Lot’s daughters. Rashi brings a Medrash that their kavana was leshem znus . However, the Gemara in Horayos says that their kavana was leshem mitzvo ! The Maharal explains that they were driven by both the kavano for znus and for the mitzvo! It seems that they inherited these contradictory desires from their father.

These two elements of Lot manifest themselves later in history in the form of two of his descendants, Ruth and Orpah. They are daughters of the King of Moav, Eglon; they marry Jewish men but become widowed. They choose to leave their birthplace and accompany their mother-in-law Naomi on her return to Eretz Yisroel from Moav. They are prepared to give up their royal status and join Naomi in poverty. Naomi repeatedly tells them to return until Orpah finally gives in and returns to her life in Moav, Ruth, however, persists in her desire to remain with Naomi and convert to Judaism. This is a key moment in history - the two sisters are faced with the battle between clinging to the truth of Torah, or returning to the pleasures of life in Moav. This conflict represents the same dichotomy as that which characterized Lot - living according to the truth versus striving to satisfy taivas. On this occasion, the two attitudes split between the two women. Orpah is pulled by the same desires that plagued Lot - Chazal tell us that on the very that she returned to Moav, she committed many gross acts of znus. The culmination of her decision was her great-grandson Goliath, a man who was totally devoid of spirituality. Ruth, in contrast, clung to that part of Lot which knew the truth, she realized that she was undertaking a very difficult task in life, but she knew that it was the only true path. Her decision to cling to the truth ultimately lead to the birth of David HaMelech and will produce Mashiach.

Our job is to emulate Ruth and let our deep recognition of the truth be the driving force behind our desires. This is not easy in present day society . The western world persists in convincing us that the source of happiness and success is physical satisfaction, money, honor and power. It is quite possible for a person to observe the mitzvos and simultaneously be driven by these goals. The account of Lot teaches us about the consequences of such an attitude. A person’s observance will inevitably be compromised when he is faced with a conflict of interest between these dual driving forces. For example a person must ask himself, Is his ikar goal to make a living or to get close to Hashem. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but it should only be a means to an end, a way of providing for one’s family and enabling them to live a rich Torah life. If a person views success in his career as the source of his happiness, then he will inevitably be pulled away from ruchnius. One common result of this is that his learning and Avodas Hamidos suffers. Many other life decisions will be defined by a person’s true sheifos; how much time he spends involved in mitzvos as opposed to making money; where he chooses to live and where he sends his children to school. One may think that these areas do not involve explicit issurim but they define whether a person’s life is driven by a desire to do Ratson Hashem or something else. Moreover, when a person is faced with this battle between his desires and his knowledge of the truth, then, it is very likely that he will come to be more lenient in halacho, justifying questionable behavior as being mutar. A good example of this is that one may be overly lenient in the area of mixing with the opposite gender as a result of taiva. Another is that a person may feel the need to compromise on his standards in kashrus in order to be able to mix with his non-Jewish business associates. We also learn from Lot that if we follow his path, then our children and students will do the same, but eventually the powerful pull of Western society will overcome the deep recognition of truth. The only way to avoid this disastrous but all too common phenomena is to clarify why we keep the Torah - is it because of grudging recognition that we have to, or also because we know that it is the best and indeed, only way of living a truly meaningful life. May we all merit to play our role in bringing Mashiach.

A NEW LEVEL OF EXISTENCE - LECH LECHA

“And Hashem said to Avraham, go for yourself from your land, from your relatives, and from your father’s house to the land that I will show you, And I will make of you a great nation. I will bless you, and make your name great, and you shall be a blessing. ” The first command ever made to the father of Klal Yisroel, Avraham Avinu, was to leave his surroundings and to begin a new nation that would be the Am Hashem. The Ramban writes that everything that happened in the life of the Avos is a portent for the future of Klal Yisroel, and their behavior teaches us how we should conduct our lives. This concept seems to pose a difficulty: How does the command of ’lech lecha’ apply to all of us, Avraham was alone in his belief in G-d, and therefore it was necessary for him to leave everything behind and form a new nation. But nowadays there are many Jews who accept the Torah and who live in observant societies - given this fact it seems that the command of ’lech lecha’ does not really apply to us!

On deeper analysis it is clear that the command of ‘lech lecha’ is still very relevant to all of us. Hashem’s command to Avraham was deeper than simply an instruction to leave his surroundings. We are given a hint to this by Rashi; He explains why Hashem promised Avraham fame, money and descendants as a consequence of leaving Charan. “Because traveling causes three things, less [likelihood of having] children, less [likelihood of acquiring] money and less [likelihood of having] fame. Therefore he needed these three brachos.. children, money and fame. ” The simple understanding of this is that Hashem was compensating Avraham for a course of behavior that would normally cause damage to a person. However, it seems that there is a deeper message implicit in this instruction. Hashem was hinting to him that if he undertook the challenge of ’lech lecha’ then he would no longer be subject to the normal laws of nature (derech hateva), rather he would live according to a whole new mode of existence - ‘ beyond derech hateva’. Consequently, even though traveling should, b’derech hateva cause loss of wealth, fame and children, Avraham would not be subject to that system of cause and effect. Instead he would live on a whole different level of existence and would benefit in all these areas.

This idea is also alluded to by the Medrash Tanchuma quoted by Rashi in the first passuk in the parsha where Hashem promises Avraham that “I will make known your teva in the world. ” Why couldn’t the Medrash have simply stated, “I will make you known in the world”, what is the significance of the word, ‘teva‘ here? We can answer with this yesod; that Hashem was promising Avraham that he would live on a whole new level of teva that was hitherto unknown in the world. Avraham would have the merit to share this new form of existence with the world, teaching them a whole new approach to life. Derech drush it is also possible that this message was alluded to in the very words, “lech lecha.” The gematria of “lecha” is 50; 49 is a multiple of 7 that represents this world, whilst 8 represents beyond this world. 49 also represents this world, as is seen in the 49 levels of tuma and tahara, whilst 50 represents beyond that, as epitomized by the fact that the 50th day after Yetsias Mitzrayim was the day of Matan Torah - the occasion where the world took on a whole new level of supernatural existence. Hashem was telling Avraham, ’go to the level of 50’, a new level of existence, beyond teva.

Hashem promised Avraham that if he would live according to a metaphysical reality then he would no longer be bound by the physical reality of cause and effect that drives teva. Indeed, after Avraham successfully passes this test Hashem reveals to him at the Bris Bein Habesarim that he will live according to a different set of rules: The passuk says that He took Avraham outside, Rashi explains that Hashem was telling him to leave the confines of the mazalos, and live on a new level of existence, and that is how he and Sarah could have children even though their mazal was to never procreate . The Zohar says that this promise would only be fulfilled on condition that Avraham and his descendants be osek in Torah and mitzovs. Keeping Torah and mitzvos is the expression of living beyond derech hateva.

A person who lives according to Torah and mitzvos is, automatically living according to a different set of rules from the rest of the world. For example, in many areas of business, the busiest day is Shabbos; a person who lives according to the normal laws of cause and effect will never give up that day’s business in order to observe Shabbos. Only a person who recognizes that the Torah prescribes a different mode of cause and effect, can confidently close his business on Shabbos with the assurance that his parnasa will not suffer as a consequence. Another example of this is found in the Gemara in Bava Metsia . The Gemara discusses a certain scenario where somebody has lent his friend an item and there is now disagreement as to the value of the item. The Gemara concludes that the borrower must take a shevua to validate his claim, whereas the lender is not required to swear. Why is the borrower required to swear whilst the lender is not? The Gemara answers that the borrower trusts the lender because he is wealthy, and that the cause of his wealth is surely the fact that he is honest and trustworthy, because if this was not the case, then “they would not have given him wealth from shamayim .” It is pashut to the Gemara that honesty is the cause of wealth - if we were to ask the average person what is the cause of wealth, honesty would surely be one of the least likely answers he would suggest! According to derech hateva, honesty is not the key to wealth, indeed, many people believe that dishonesty will provide them with money. But, Klal Yisroel lives according to a completely different mode of existence, where shemiras hamitzvos and exemplary midos are the cause of success.

This has been a pattern throughout history; The Jewish people have always been faced with the challenge of living according to the ‘laws of the goyim’ or the ‘laws of Klal Yisroel’. Unfortunately this has proved a most difficult challenge to overcome. The meraglim, for example, fell prey to the tendency to approach the world according to the laws of nature. When they saw the giant inhabitants of the land they felt that it was impossible to overcome them. Their mistake was that they did not accept that if they trusted in Hashem then He would override all the laws of nature for them just as He did at Yetsias Mitzrayim and Krias Yam Suf. This principle is fundamental to the spiritual level of a Jew. It is possible to strive to observe the Torah and yet live, to some degree, according to the regular laws of teva just like the goyim. A person can easily fall into the trap of believing that the amount of time he works is the main factor in determining his financial situation. Consequently, he may increase his work hours at the expense of his learning schedule or spending precious time with his family . There is a frightening consequence to such conduct. Hashem acts mida ceneged mida with us, if we show that we do not trust in Him, rather we rely on our own efforts, then, Hashem hides Himself and we are left more to the laws of nature. This explains why a common pattern of history has been that when the Jewish people turn away from Hashem, He consequently turns away from us, and as a result we are left unprotected from the wrath of the goyim.

Another area of Avodas Hashem in which this concept applies greatly is a recognition that spiritual , and not physical, factors are the sole cause of success or failure. This attitude was epitomized by our Gedolim. Rav Moshe Aharon Stern, zt”l, Mashgiach of Kamenitz Yeshivah, was once walking behind Rav Elyah Lopian zt”l and Rav Chatzkel Levenstein zt”l; so he hurried to be close enough behind them to hear what these two tzadikkim discuss between themselves. Reb Chatzkel noticed that Reb Elyah had a bandage over one eye and asked him what happened. Reb Elyah responded that he must have looked at something forbidden and it damaged his eye. Inspired by the question and response, Reb Moshe Aharon stepped closer to hear Reb Chatzkel’s response. To his surprise, he did not respond, he simply accepted Reb Elyah’s explanation as a point of fact, not noting anything novel or particularly righteous in Reb Elyah’s explanation. Reb Moshe Aharon explained that Reb Elyah understood that when Reb Chatzkel inquired about his eye, he was not asking about the physical condition of the eye, but the spiritual reason behind the injury. Reb Elyah understood that this was the only point of Reb Chatzkel’s question and responded accordingly . These Gedolim understood that spiritual factors were responsible for the cause-and-effect in their lives, they lived with a deep recognition that a Jew’s reality is not defined by the same laws as those of goyim. We asked how the command of ’lech lecha’ is relevant to us today. The answer is that lech lecha was not merely a command to Avraham to leave his evil surroundings, it was a call for him to live according to a different set of rules, defined by the spiritual world, and his reward would be that Hashem would in turn treat him beyond the regular set of laws that define the physical world. This lesson is very much relevant to all of us. The Sfas Emes asks, why Hashem only said lech lecha to Avraham Avinu and not to the rest of the world. He answers by bringing a Zohar that Hashem says lech lecha to everyone, but only Avraham responded to it. In the world today Hashem says lech lecha - the goyim ignore it but we cannot; and our reward for responding to is that we will rise above the limits of this world.

AVRAHAM’S SECOND TEST - LECH LECHA

“There was a famine in the land, and Abram descended to Egypt to sojourn there, for the famine was severe in the land. ”

The Parsha begins with Hashem instructing Avraham Avinu to uproot his whole life, leave his nation, society, and family, and go on a journey to an unknown destination. Soon after passing this test and traveling to Eretz Yisroel, Avraham endures a terrible famine and is forced to leave for Eretz Mitzrayim. Chazal and the Rishonim write that this famine constituted one of the ten tests that Avraham had to pass in order to achieve his full potential . What was the exact nature of the test? Rashi says, “in order to test him if he would question the words of HaKadosh Baruch Hu - Hashem told him to go to the land of Canaan and now He caused him to leave! ”

According to Rashi the main aspect of the test was not the challenge of having no food, but that Avraham was unable to fulfill Hashem’s instructions of ’lech lecha’. Hashem had told him to go to the land of Eretz Yisroel and there he would be able to fulfill his spiritual potential, and yet he was immediately met with a tremendous obstacle which forced him to take a course of action which seemed to contradict the whole tachlis of his mission. He believed that his task was to be in Eretz Yisroel and yet he was forced to leave as soon as he arrived there! He could have wondered why he was forced to seemingly abandon his spiritual journey but he did not become frustrated and did not question Hashem in any way. He recognized that he did not truly understand how his journey of ‘lech lecha’ should proceed - that was in Hashem’s hands. He could only do his hishtadlus and accept that anything beyond his control was from Hashem and there was no need to be discouraged. He knew that the famine came from Hashem and that Hashem must have some reasoning behind the plan. Indeed, in hindsight, the events that took place there and the challenges that he faced, do seem to have had many benefits .

The Ramban writes that all the experiences of the Avos are a simun for his descendants. We also face the challenges that he faced and the way that he dealt with those challenges will give us the ability to withstand them in our own lives. Accordingly, the test of the famine is very relevant to all our lives. A person may embark on a spiritual journey based on his understanding of Ratson Hashem. This may involve a major life change such as moving country, or changing ones career, getting married, having children or even a smaller commitment to spiritual growth in learning or mitzvos. Regardless of the form that the ‘journey’ takes, a person will likely have his expectations of the challenges that he will face and how he needs to overcome them. However, very often, he will be met with unforeseen difficulties or obstacles that seem to contradict his whole plan. At that point, there will be a strong inclination to become frustrated that he is unable to grow in the way that he desires.

What is the reason that a person becomes frustrated when his efforts to grow do not work out as he planned? He feels that he knows what would be the ideal way for him to reach his potential - by taking this course of action he will become a better person. Therefore, when he is placed in a situation where his planned course of action his impossible, he feels frustrated because it prevents him from attaining his goal. The mistake he is making is that he feels he knows how he will best reach his potential. Instead he should recognize that only Hashem knows what circumstances a person should face in his life and that whatever obstacles he faces are only there for his growth. He may have thought that such an obstacle was not ideal for his growth, however, evidently Hashem knew otherwise.

My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita gives a common example of this kind of nisayon. A yeshiva bachur or Avreich hopes to begin a new ’zman’ of learning free of outside disturbances that will adversely effect his ability to learn. Talmud Torah is the ultimate way of connecting to Hashem and growing as a person and therefore he hopes he will be able to invest all his energies into the learning. However, on occasion, it may occur that unavoidable distractions do arise, such as the need to attend a family wedding abroad, or health issues. At this point, the person may feel frustrated that he is unable to grow in the way that he wants to - he may see these disturbances as nuisances that prevent him from connecting to Hashem. The mistake being made here is that he thinks he knows the best way for him to grow and that annoying distractions are preventing him from doing so. Instead, he should learn from Avraham Avinu and recognize that these ‘nuisances’ emanate from Hashem and evidently they offer the exact challenge that he needs at this moment. Then he can avoid the harmful attitude of frustration and focus on facing this challenge with simcha and bitachon.

Avraham Avinu’s tests teach vital lessons that apply to our everyday life. May we all be zocheh to emulate his behavior in reacting to challenges.

NOACH AND AVRAHAM - PARSHAS NOACH

“These are the offspring of Noach, Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generations; Noach walked with
G-d.” Noach was the greatest person in his time, the only one who deserved to be spared from the flood. And yet Noach is unfavorably compared to Avraham Avinu by Chazal in a number of places. What is the difference between these two great men?

Rashi brings a Medrash that contrasts Avraham and Noach. With regard to Noach, the Torah says “Noach walked with G-d.” This means that he needed help in his Avodas Hashem. But to Avraham, Hashem says “Walk before me.” This means that Avraham could strengthen himself on his own. The commentaries explain that Avraham was pro-active and self-motivated. He did not need external events to stimulate him to serve Hashem and do kindness. Noach needed external circumstances to push him forward in his righteousness.

Rav Eliyahu Dessler zt"l expands on this idea. He writes that Noach is called “Ish tzaddik (man of righteousness),” whilst Avraham is “Ish chessed (man of kindness).” Noach performed incredible acts of kindness in the ark, feeding hundreds of animals for several months. However, says Rav Dessler, “This was only tzedek - he fulfilled his obligation.” It did not stem from an overflowing desire to give, but was rather a reaction to the needs of others. Avraham, in contrast, did not perform kindness out of obligation, but because of a burning desire to give. This divergence between Noach and Avraham is not restricted to kindness in the physical realm, but also extends into the spiritual realm. The Seforno writes that Noach did rebuke the people in his generation but he did not go any further. “He did not teach them to know G-d and how to go in his ways.” Consequently, he did not possess enough merit to save the generation. In contrast Avraham went far beyond the call of duty to teach the world to know Hashem.

The commentaries also discuss why Noach’s great descendants, Shem and Ever, did not merit to attain Avraham’s greatness. The Rambam describes how Avraham fought against the idolatry prevalent in his times. “He began to call out in a loud voice to the whole world and taught them that there is one G-d in the world and it is He that one should serve… He would continually call out and gather the people from city to city and from kingdom to kingdom until he reached there, as it says, “and he called out in the name of Hashem the eternal G-d. And when the people would gather and ask him what he was preaching, he would teach to every one of them, each according to his ability, until he would bring them to the true way, until tens of thousands of people gathered to follow him.” The Raavad writes on this Rambam, “I am astonished, for Shem and ever were there at this time. how could they not protest [against the idolatry that surrounded them. The Kesef Mishnah answers, “Shem and Ever were teaching the way of Hashem to their students, but they did not rouse themselves to call and teach in the way that Avraham did. Because of this he rose to a higher level than they did.”

This seems difficult to understand. We know that Shem and Ever had a yeshivah in which they taught Torah for a very long time. Why then are they considered on a lower level than Avraham Avinu, to the extent that he is the spiritual father of Klal Yisroel, the Chosen People, but they are not? We can answer this question with Rav Dessler’s principle. There are two ways to give. A person can be re-active, waiting for people who want to learn Torah and grow in their Yiddishkeit, or one can be pro-active, seeking out people who would not otherwise want to learn Torah or develop any kind of relationship with Hashem. Noach, Shem and Ever were limited to the first type of giving. This is a high level, but, as Rav Dessler explains, it does not qualify as true chessed. Avraham, however, was pro-active. He did not wait for people to come to him. He sought out people who did not even know that they were lacking anything and taught them about Hashem. This is true chessed. This is what caused Avraham to rise to a higher level than Noach, Shem and Ever.

Why would a person reach the level of reactive kindness but fail to progress to the higher level of giving pro-actively? The clue to this can be found in Noach’s name. We know that a person’s name teaches us about his essence. The word, 'noach' means 'comfortable'. It is not easy to take responsibility for something without first being called upon to do it. The negative inclination (yetser hara) will find numerous excuses to avoid taking on a challenging endeavor when the genuine reason for doing so is desire for comfort.

The great author of The Chovos Levavos reveals to us that he was subject to this very challenge. He writes in the introduction that after planning to write the sefer he changed his mind, citing a number of reasons. “I thought my powers too limited and my mind too weak to grasp the ideas. Furthermore, I do not possess an elegant style in Arabic, in which the book would have been written… I feared that I would be undertaking a task which would succeed [only] in exposing my shortcomings…Therefore I decided to drop my plans and revoke my decision.” However, he recognized that perhaps his motives were not completely pure. “I began to suspect that I had chosen the comfortable option, looking for peace and quiet. I feared that what had motivated the cancellation of the project had been the desire for self-gratification, which had driven me to seek ease and comfort, to opt for inactivity and sit idly by.” To the eternal benefit of Klal Yisroel he decided to write the Sefer and it is difficult to imagine Klal Yisroel being bereft of its spiritual guidance. The reasons that he initially cited in support of his decision not to write the sefer seem fair and logical. But he recognized that, on his level, they were tainted by a desire for comfort. We too have plausible reasons why we choose to ignore opportunities to help Klal Yisroel. But we must be extremely careful to make sure that we are not in fact just being lazy. Imagine how many great works or bold initiatives may never have reached fruition because of this yetser hara.

Another hindrance to pro-activity is misplaced bitachon. A person may have the hashkafa that Hashem will send him his tachlis on a plate. History proves that the great builders in Torah did not have this attitude. They looked at the problems in the world and decided to take action to rectify them without waiting to be told to do so. People such as Rav Aharon Kotler, the Ponevezher Rav and Rebbetsin Sarah Shenirer emulated Avraham Avinu and took the initiave to build Torah institutions. These institutions reinforced Torah, and enabled us to survive the spitirual onslaught of the Enlightenment and the physical onslaught of the Holocaust.

A less well-known example of a proactive builder is Joseph Rosenberg. He lived in the post- -Holocaust generation. He saw a world in which one particular mitzvo was largely ignored - the mitzvo of Shatnes. He single-handedly created Shatnes checking observatories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnes. What was the key to his greatness? It was not necessarily his knowledge of Torah but it was his willingness to pro-actively go out and fix a problem he saw in Klal Yisroel .

In our generation, one does not have to look far to find opportunities to improve the word in some form. But he must not wait to be asked to step forward. If he does wait, the opportunity may never materialize. Hashem may want us to open our eyes and take action without being prompted to do so. As we have seen, there are people who have already done so, showing us that it is possible.

Noach was a great man but he is not the progenitor of the Chosen People. He did kindness, but only after he was instructed to. He rebuked the people, but only after Hashem had told him to do soas a reactive person, who needed external circumstance to arouse him to action. By contrast, Avraham Avinu did not need to be motivated to serve Hashem. He did not wait for people to come to him in order to teach them Torah. He reached the level of true chessed through great effort. It is incumbent upon us, his descendants, to emulate him and seek and pursue opportunities to make a difference to Klal Yisroel.

DEPTH AND SUPERFICIALITY - NOACH

The Parsha ends with a very short account of the early life of Avraham Avinu. It outlines his family, including his brother, Haran, and how he met an untimely death. The Torah briefly tells us that Haran died in front of his father. The Medrash provides the details to the background of this tragedy. It discusses how Avraham rejected the rampant idol worship of his time and came to belief in one G-d. He destroyed the idols in his father, Terach’s store, and as a result, Terach handed him over to King Nimrod. Nimrod tried to force him to worship idols and when he refused, Nimrod had him thrown into a fire. Haran was an onlooker to all this and knew that he would be forced to side either with Avraham or Nimrod. Before Avraham was thrown into the fire, Haran took a very practical approach – if Avraham would survive, then Haran would join him, but if he would die, then he would side with Nimrod. When Avraham emerged unscathed from the fire, Haran accordingly declared his support for Avraham. As a result, he was thrown into the fire and was killed.

The Medrash points out that his death was somewhat unusual in that only his internal organs were destroyed, implying that his external body was left undamaged. What is the significance of this unusual death? The answer is given that on an external level, Haran was righteous, in that he made himself out to be of the same ilk as Avraham, however, internally, he was did not believe with a leiv shalem. Accordingly, his insides were destroyed because they were lacking merit. However, his exterior was unharmed because it appeared righteous.

This explanation provides us with an example of the principle that it is possible to observe Torah and Mitzvos on two different levels – internally or externally. Internal observance means that a person imbues himself with the attitudes espoused by the Torah – his outlook and life goals are solely defined by the Torah. External observance means that a person may observe all the Mitzvos, however, his deep-seated desires and aspirations are not in tune with doing ratson HaShem (HaShem’s will), rather, other factors drive him. Haran proved himself to be someone whose adherence to belief in one G-d was purely superficial, therefore, he was only protected on a superficial level. Avraham, in contrast, held a deep internal commitment to fulfilling ratson HaShem on all levels, as a result he was fully protected from Nimrod’s fire.

Haran’s trait of externality was emulated by his son, Lot. On a superficial level, Lot observed the Torah, however, many of his actions demonstrated that internally, he was lacking a true desire to follow Avraham’s ways. He was more interested in satisfying his desire for financial success and immorality. The extent to which Lot represents a dichotomy between his internal and external nature is borne out by Chazal in Parsha Lech Lecha. Having settled in Eretz Yisroel, Lot’s shepherds begin to justify grazing their animals on the land of the inhabitants. Avraham’s shepherds protested his, correctly arguing that it constituted thievery, and as a result, a dispute broke out. At that point, Avraham requested that they separate, arguing that they were ‘brothers’ . The obvious problem with this argument is that they were not brothers, Avraham was Lot’s uncle. Moreover, what was the rationale of his argument that they were brothers? The Medrash explains that Avraham was saying that they were like brothers in that they were extremely similar in appearance. Accordingly, Avraham was concerned that people would see Lot grazing other people’s land with his animals and think it was Avraham. We see from here that on a superficial level, Lot was very similar to Avraham, indeed he must have appeared to be a very righteous person, yet internally, he resembled his father, Haran.

Haran had another child, Sarah Imeinu. It seems that she succeeded in avoiding the failing of her father and brother, and became someone whose external observance was matched by internal righteousness. In our Parsha, she is called by a second name, that of Yiskah. The Gemara offers two reasons for this name. One is that she saw with ruach Hakodesh, the other is that everyone would gaze at her beauty. It seems that these two explanations complement each other. The beauty she possessed was not merely of a physical nature, rather it was a spiritual beauty. This emanated from her high spiritual level, which was demonstrated by the fact that she had ruach Hakodesh. Thus, her external beauty was a result of her internal righteousness. In this way, we see that she was able to emulate Avraham in matching her external observance with internal sincerity.

There are many lessons that can be derived from the failings of Haran and Lot, and the greatness of Avraham and Sarah. As Haran demonstrated, it is very easy to be a ‘superficial tzaddik’, it is not hard to dress in a certain way and perform certain actions that make a person look ‘righteous’. However, such externality is very dangerous in that it can cause a person to be a mere shell of an Eved HaShem (one who serves HaShem), whilst on the inside, he is anything but an Eved HaShem. The Prophet, Yeshaya, informs us of the seriousness of this failing: He describes how HaShem will punish Klal Yisroel, “because this people approached [Me] with it mouth and honored me with its lips, but its heart was far from me…”

Moreover, emphasis on externalities can actually hinder one’s internal gowth. One of the methods of the yetser hara is to make a person who wants to grow focus on external changes, whilst distracting him from internal growth. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits describes a secular person who had a tendency to violence. He became ‘observant’, dramatically changing his dress code and external actions, however, he retained his internal tendency to violence. Now he channeled it in a different, ‘frum’ way, by throwing stones at people whom he disagreed with, but he did not change his true self. In a less dramatic fashion, this pitfall can affect all people who try to improve their Avodas HaShem and overemphasize external changes at the expense of true growth. It is essential that a person make a cheshbon hanefesh of the balance between his external and internal Avodas HaShem. May we all merit to emulate Avraham and Sarah and internalize what we believe in.

SHEM AND EVER – THE MASTERS OF INSULATION - PARSHAS NOACH

At the end of Parshas Bereishis, the Torah writes that Noach found favor in the eyes of HaShem. In the beginning of the next Parsha, the Torah tells us of the offspring of Noach. The Medrash notes the juxtaposition between Noach’s finding favor with HaShem and the mention of his children. It explains that Noach’s special favor was in the merit of his sons. Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l notes that this Medrash is difficult to understand; in all its discussion of Noach’s special treatment by HaShem, the Torah makes no emphasis of this being due to his sons’ greatness, rather Noach, through his own merit, was deserving of being saved from the Flood and of being the progenitor of mankind. Accordingly, why does the Medrash attribute Noach’s special favor to his sons? Rav Kamenetsky answers this by quoting another Medrash. That Medrash discusses Noach’s ability to protect himself and his family from the evil people that surrounded him. It gives an analogy of a flask of perfume that is sealed tight, which is placed in a cemetery yet despite its unpleasant surroundings it maintains its pleasant aroma.

Rav Kamenetsky explains that Noach’s greatest accomplishment was his ability to protect himself and his family from the evil influences that encircled them on all sides in the same way that a sealed flask of perfume can maintain its pleasantness despite the great powers of impurity surrounding it. Therefore, when the Medrash says that Noach was saved in his sons’ merit it means that he was saved because he brought up his children in such a way that they were protected from the negative influences surrounding them.

This idea is further brought out by a drush interpretation of a Gemara in Brachos. The Gemara states that even if a person has said the krias Shema in shul, he must say it again before he goes to sleep. The Shema epitomizes the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven (ol Malchus Shamayim). This Gemara alludes to the fact that even if a person accepted the yoke of Heaven in shul with the community he must do it again when he is at home without the spiritual support of the community. The Gemara is teaching us that it is insufficient for a person to maintain his spiritual level when he is surrounded by likeminded people who can help him. He must be strong enough to maintain this level even when he is alone, with no external support. Noach epitomized this exalted level, whereby he was able to maintain his righteousness even though he had no assistance from those around him.
Noach’s son Shem, and his great-grandson, Ever, emulated Noach in this area, and taught it over to the individuals who came to study in their Yeshivas. With this understanding, a number of difficulties can be resolved. Firstly, when Yaakov Avinu leaves Eretz Yisroel to go to Lavan, he goes to the Yeshiva of Ever (Shem had already passed away by that time ) and learns there for fourteen years. Yaakov was sixty three years old at the time, and had spent his whole life learning from his great father, Yitzchak Avinu. Why was the Torah that he learnt from Yitzchak insufficient to prepare him for his time with Lavan? The answer is that up to this time in his life, Yaakov had grown up surrounded by tzaddikim and now that he was facing the challenge of living with people like Lavan he needed to learn other sugyas (topics), those related to dealing with tricksters, liars and enemies. The Torah of Yitzchak Avinu was not geared to such nisyonos (tests) because he too was protected from negative influences by his parents. Indeed, when Yishmael threatened to negatively influence him, Sarah threw him out of the home. In contrast Shem and Ever had grown up surrounded by evil; Shem, in the time of the Mabul (great flood), and Ever, in the time of the Tower of Bavel. Accordingly, the Torah of Shem and Ever addressed the kinds of challenges that Yaakov knew he would face during his time with Lavan.

The teachings of Shem and Ever are also mentioned with regard to the Torah that Yaakov taught his son, Yosef. Rashi, based on the Medrash, says that one of the ways in which Yaakov seemed to give preferential treatment to Yosef was that, “everything he [Yaakov] learnt from Shem and Ever, he passed on to him [Yosef].” Why does the Medrash stress in particular that the Torah that Yaakov learnt from Shem and Ever; what about the Torah he learnt from Yitzchak? The answer is that Yaakov subconsciously knew that Yosef, of all the sons, was destined to live in exile away from G-d fearing people, and surrounded by negative influences. Therefore, he taught Yosef in particular amongst all the sons the Torah of Shem and Ever because he was in the greatest need of that Torah. The others brothers misread Yaakov’s intentions and believed that he was teaching Yosef more Torah than them, because only he would continue the line of transmission. However, in truth, Yaakov was only equipping Yosef with the tools that he needed to survive his own galus (exile).

Indeed, when Yaakov is finally reunited with Yosef he exclaims, “Rav, od Yosef chai” – “it is great, Yosef is still alive”. The Medrash elaborates on what Yaakov meant by this – he was extolling Yosef’s great strength in withstanding many challenges and tests in Mitzrayim, and yet remaining steadfast in his righteousness. The reason Yosef was so successful in this area was because of the Torah of Shem and Ever that Yaakov taught him in his youth.

We have seen Rav Kamenetky’s theme which teaches us that Noach’s great strength was his ability to protect himself and his family from external influences and how Shem and Ever passed on his teachings through the Torah that they taught in their Yeshivas. The only remaining question is what does it mean that they taught a different type of Torah? In what way was it different? There are two areas of Torah in which it seems that Shem and Ever taught a different type of Torah; halacha (Jewish law) and hashkafa (Jewish thought). In terms of halacha Rav Kamenetsky notes that The Chofetz Chaim wrote a separate work on the Jewish laws specifically geared for Jews who were serving in non-Jewish armies. Such people obviously faced many unusual and difficult challenges and needed guidance as to when they could apply various leniencies and to what extent. In a similar vein, nowadays, people can be exposed to environments that pose new questions; people who work in non-Jewish environments, or people who have secular families, face complicated questions that are not necessarily addressed in the standard halacha works. Obviously such delicate questions cannot be answered alone, rather one must ask a Rav who is familiar with these unusual situations.

With regard to hashkafa, there are clearly different challenges that face people in varying situations. A person who finds himself surrounded by others who espouse very distinct lifestyles will need to study works of mussar and hashkafa that focus on staying strong in such circumstances. He may need a more constant strengthening in basics of Jewish thought in order to maintain the correct outlook when those around him may pressure him to act differently. We have seen the importance of the Torah of Shem and Ever to the development of our forefathers, and how it can apply to our lives.

FULFILLING OUR POTENTIAL - YOM KIPPUR

As we approach Yom Kippur we recognise that there is a great necessity to contemplate our shemiras hamitzvos - where we have erred and where we need to do teshuva. However there is another vital aspect of Avodas Hashem that we are less aware of, that we also need to analyse: In the tefillas for the Yamim Noraim we state that man is judged, ‘maaseh ish u’pekudaso’. ‘Maaseh ish’ refers to one’s shemiras hamitzvos but what does ‘pekudaso’ mean? Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlovitz zt”l explains that ‘pekudaso’ refers to man’s tafkid, his purpose in this world. Every individual is placed in this world with a specific job to accomplish and he is judged according to whether he devoted enough effort into reaching this goal. Even if a person has kept all the mitzvos, he may still be taken to task if he did not fulfil his potential. It seems that this Avoda is even more difficult than that of shemiras hamitzvos as is seen by the following examples.

When the Netziv completed his commentary on the Sheiltos, ‘Emek Sheila’ he made a seuda, partly because that is the custom when one completes a sefer but he had another, more personal reason. He related that when he was a boy he was not particularly serious about his Torah studies. His parents made every effort to help him change his attitude but to no avail. One day he overheard his parents discussing his lack of success in Torah learning - they decided that he had no prospect of becoming a Talmid Chacham and therefore he should learn to become a cobbler. They hoped that at least he would be a yirei shamayim who would go about his work with honesty and dedication. When he heard this, it shocked him greatly and he decided to take his Torah studies seriously - this event had such an impact on him that it led to a complete change in his attitude and he became a Gadol, he was Rosh Yeshiva of Volozhin and wrote a number of classic sefarim. Imagine if he had never had this change of attitude and he would have become a simple cobbler who observed Torah and Mitzvos with genuine yiras shamayim. He would have gone up to shamayim confident that he had led a Torah true lifestyle, keeping the mitzvos, and being kovaya ittim l‘Torah. Instead they would have shown him the Emek Sheila, he would look at it and have no understanding of its content. They would ask him, where’s your Emek Sheila, where are all the sefarim that you could have written? He would have lived his life with no idea of what he could have become. It was only through a dramatic change in his attitude that he was able to reach his true potential - to be a Gadol b’Yisroel.

There are other allusions to this concept in the Yom Kippur davenning. At Mincha we read Maftir Yonah - what is the significance of the story of Yonah for Yom Kippur? Of course it teaches us about teshuva but the Mishna Berurah brings another connection. Yonah shows us that “one cannot escape from Hashem.” He elaborates in the Shaar Hatzion; sometimes a person gives up in life, feeling that he cannot achieve what he is meant to, “however, this is a mistake, for eventually, everything that Hashem wants this soul to fix, he must fix, and return many times to Olam Hazeh [in order to do so]… if that is the case, why should he go through the pain of death and ‘Chibut hakever’ and other difficulties and return yet again?” We learn a vital lesson from Yonah. He tried to escape G-d’s plan but could not: We too are all assigned a task to fulfil, but we have a tendency to try to avoid it; Why? It may be because it seems too difficult, or because we don’t feel we can achieve it or we do not want to take the responsibility. But whatever the reason is, we learn from Yonah that we must not escape our tachlis.

After Mincha we enter into the Neila prayers - the climax of Yom Kippur, the day of teshuva. But strangely, we do not say the vidui in the Neila Shemoneh Esrei; where do we express our feelings of teshuva in Neila? The Chiddushei HaRim zt”l answers that our teshuva is found in the words, “so that we can withdraw our hands from stealing.” Why do we davke mention the sin of stealing ahead of all others in Neila? He explains that this does not just refer to regular stealing, but to the fact that Hashem gives us so many gifts, money, food, housing, talents, opportunities, all in order to help us fulfil our role in life. But what do we do? We misuse those gifts for different goals - that is considered stealing, using gifts that are given for a certain purpose and using them for something else . As we approach the final moments of Yom Kippur we have, hopefully, already cleansed ourselves of our aveiros, but now, at the climax of the holiest day of the year, we also repent for failing to use our G-d given talents for the right reasons, and we express our intentions that, this year, we will do our utmost to use them to fulfil our potential. But we must really mean it: Everyone, at some point in their life is given an opportunity to do something significant for Klal Yisroel. Often, we refuse the opportunity, finding many excuses to avoid it. What is frightening about this is that a person may go through life having missed his golden chance to fulfil his potential and he will never realise it - he won’t necessarily feel that his life was missing anything. However, when he goes up to shamayim he may be faced with the same question that Avraham Avinu, the Netsiv and Reb Dovid Dryan could answer - where is the heavenly you, where is your true potential?

This idea is indeed something that should be a cause of concern for people - a person should often ask himself, ‘am I fulfilling my potential? Am I achieving what Hashem wants me to? How could I do more?’ However, this should also be an exciting idea - each of us has the ability to achieve true greatness, each one in his own specific way. How much can one person achieve? On a visit to Aish Hatorah, Rav Shach zt”l was astounded to see so many baalei teshuva - people who came from nothing but whom, through the efforts of a few dedicated and idealistic people, had returned to Torah. This was at a time when the baal teshuva movement had barely begun and it was not believed possible that it could ever take off. In his astonishment at what beheld his eyes he stood up and spoke: He quoted the passuk that we read in the haftara of Shabbos Shuva: “Return, Israel, to Hashem, your G-d, because you have stumbled in your iniquity .” He asked, that the passuk implies that the fact that we have sinned so badly is a reason why we should be able to return to Hashem - why is this so? He answered by bringing the concept that however much evil can do, good can achieve at least as much. Therefore, if a person can turn away from Hashem so much, then surely he can return to Him to an even greater extent. Similarly, if history has shown us that one man can destroy six million lives, then surely one man can save six million lives! With siata dishmaya, we cannot imagine what we can achieve, but it is surely beyond our wildest imaginations - but if we only try to make the effort and take the opportunities that come our way or even better, create our own opportunities, the we can begin to transform our imagination into reality.
We should all be zocheh to fulfill our true potential.

UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE MEANING OF CHESED - KEDOSHIM

In the latter part of the Parsha the Torah enumerates the various forbidden relationships and their punishments. Towards the end of this list the Torah states: “A man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, it is a chesed and they shall be cut off in the sight of the members of their people; he will have uncovered the nakedness of his sister, he shall bear his iniquity. ” There is a glaring problem with this passuk - the description of an incestuous relationship as being a ‘chesed’. Chesed is normally translated as kindness - what kindness is involved in arayos?!

In order to answer this question it is necessary to alter our understanding of what ‘chesed’ actually entails. It seems that chesed is more appropriately understood as a mida that is characterized by overflowing and lack of boundaries. One significant outgrowth of this is kindness in that chesed causes a person to want to unabashedly share with others, breaking his boundaries of selfishness. However, that is just one manifestation of chesed, and like all midos, chesed has negative, as well as positive, apects. One negative manifestation is that a person can lose his appreciation of a proper sense of boundaries. Arayos involves ignoring the Torah’s assertion that certain relationships break the appropriate boundaries. Consequently, the Torah describes arayos as chesed;

Two prominent characters in the Torah represent negative aspects of the mida of chesed; Yishmael and Lot. Chazal tell us that Yishmael was deeply involved in arayos and thievery . Both of these emanated from his distorted chesed which broke the acceptable boundaries. An attitude of ‘what is mine is yours and yours is mine’ causes a person to believe that he has the right to infringe on other people’s wives and material possessions. Lot grew up in Avraham Avinu’s home and therefore became habituated to doing chesed with others, as is demonstrated by his great hachanasos orchim in Sodom. However, Lot clearly developed a warped sense of chesed. For example, when the people of Sodom threatened to abuse his guests he preferred to offer them his own daughters! He wanted to do chesed with his guests at the expense of his own daughters .

Why did Yishmael and Lot so badly misapply the mida of chesed? The answer is that their chesed was not acquired through avodas hamidos based on the Torah‘s guidelines, rather it came as a result of genetics and upbringing. Even a generally positive mida such as chesed has undesirable offshoots if it is not applied in the correct way. For example, a person with a natural inclination to chesed may do kindness in the wrong way or quantity. He may be overflowing with chesed to friends, but forget about sufficiently caring for his own family. Another example is that a ‘chesed’ person may have a difficulty with making appropriate boundaries for himself in various aspects of life; he may find it hard to be punctual or reliable because he finds it difficult to set limits on his time. Further if a person does not have well-defined boundaries then he may have a nisayon of avoiding sheker because honesty requires the ability to adhere to the boundaries of truth.

The epitome of the correct balance of chesed is Avraham Avinu. He certainly had a natural propensity for chesed, however he did not merely allow his natural inclinations lead him blindly, rather he harnessed and even negated his chesed when necessary. On many occasions throughout the Torah, Avraham was placed in situations where he was forced to curtail his chesed . Avraham succeeded in these difficult nisyonos, thereby showing that his chesed was not directed by natural inclinations but by Yiras Hashem and Avodas HaMidos.

Another common failing of a person naturally endowed with doing chesed is that he expects people that he helps to be equally giving to him. Consequently he may not hesitate to request that others do significant favors for him because he would do the same for them. However, whilst demanding that we give in great abundance, the Torah requires that we strive not to rely on the kindness of others. This is demonstrated in Shlomo HaMelech’s assertion that “one who hates gifts will live. ” Our Gedolim were overflowing with chesed and yet they often refused to take anything from anyone else. A striking example of this is the Brisker Rav. When he was the Rav of Brisk, there were a number of children whose father’s identities were unknown and whose mother were unable to raise them. No one wanted to assume the tremendous responsibility of caring for these children. What did the poor mothers do? They would come in the middle of the night and place their children on the Brisker Rav’s doorstep. When morning came and the Rav found a crying child outside his door, he brought him inside. He took upon himself the task of finding someone to take care of the child. If he was unsuccessful, then he himself took care of all the child’s needs.

Whilst he was overflowing in helping others the Brisker Rav was extremely careful never to accept gifts of any kind, even under the most difficult of circumstances. When he first arrived in Palestine in 1941, along with the Mirrer Rosh Yeshivah, Rav Eliezer Yehuda Finkel, they were detained in the passport control offices. The delegation awaiting the two Gedolim was told that they did not have the money with which to pay the poll tax of one-half to a full-lira (approximately 80 shekels) and it was forbidden to allow entry to anyone who had not paid. One of the heads of the Jewish Agency offered to pay the tax for the Brisker Rav, but he staunchly refused, saying, “Never in my life did I take money from anyone.” After much deliberation, an old resident of Brisk had an idea - he entered the office and approached the Brisker Rav, “The members of the Brisker Community who have come to Eretz Yisroel want the Rav to continue serving as our Rav. We will pay the Rav a salary just as we did in Brisk. Therefore, I want to either give or lend the Rav the money to pay the tax, which will then be deducted from his salary.” “That’s an offer I can accept,” agreed the Brisker Rav and he accepted the money . The Brisker Rav may or may not have been naturally endowed with the mida of chesed. Regardless of his natural inclinations he excelled in the correct form of chesed and simultaneously avoided its negative aspects.

We have seen that chesed does not simply mean kindness, rather it represents the propensity for overflowing and lack of boundaries, and this can be utilized for the good or bad. Moreover, there is a striking difference between a person who has the mida of chesed through genetics or habit, as opposed to someone who develops his chesed within the lens of the Torah. May we all use the mida of chesed only for the good.

THE ROLE OF ISAAC - TOLDOS

The Torah devotes three whole Torah portions to the lives of the forefathers, Abraham and Jacob. In contrast, only parshas Toldos focuses on Isaac. And even in this parsha, there is only one story which involves Isaac and no other forefather; that is the story of his time living in Gerar, the land of the Philistines. This is an account of how Isaac is forced by a famine to move to Gerar where he says that his wife, Rebecca, is his sister, like his father had done many years earlier. Then the Torah goes to considerable length describing how the Philistines sealed wells that Abraham had dug, and how Isaac re-dug them. He endures considerable hostility from the native Philistines and finally makes a treaty with their King, Avimelech. On superficial analysis it is very difficult to derive any significant lessons from this story, but in truth, it provides the key to understanding Isaac. The most striking aspect of Isaac’s actions is that they very closely followed those of his father. When there was a famine in Abraham’s time he headed for Egypt; Isaac planned to do the same thing until God told him not to leave the land of Israel. Then he returned to the wells that his father had dug but were now sealed and he dug them again, and called them the same names that his father had called them . Rabbeinu Bachya states that from Isaac’s actions here, we derive the concept of mesoras avos, following in the traditions of our fathers for all future generations of the Jewish people. Isaac did not want to veer one inch from the path trodden by his father. Rav Mattisyahu Salomon explains Isaac’s role among the forefathers: Abraham was the trailblazer; he set the precedents and established the guideposts. Isaac’s job was to consolidate everything that his father had done, to follow precisely in his father’s footsteps and thereby establish for all future generations the primacy of following the mesora (tradition). Isaac’s life work was not to seek new ways and new paths but to follow faithfully on the path trodden by his father. Therefore, when a famine came to the land, he immediately thought of going to Egypt because his father did so. And when he came to Gerar he dug the same wells and gave them the same names that Avraham had given them .

However, there is another key aspect to Yizchak Avinu that seems to contradict the idea that he followed his father in every way: Chazal tell us that they possessed very different personalities; Avraham epitomizes midos hachesed, overflowing with kindness to everyone. Yitzchak, in contrast, is characterized by midos hadin and gevura. Indeed, a great part of his greatness is the fact that he was not a mere clone of his father; this is illustrated by Chazal’s explanation of why Yitzchak’s tefillas for children were answered before those of Rivka. The Gemara, quoted by Rashi, tells us that there is no comparison between the tefillos of a tzaddik ben tzaddik to those of a tzaddik ben rasha . This is very difficult to understand, a person who overcomes their negative upbringing to become righteous seems to deserve greater merit than one who is born into a righteous family. The answer is that a tzadik ben tzadik faces an even more difficult challenge - not to become a carbon copy of his father. Avraham was the greatest role model a person could have, and it would have been natural for Yitzchak to try to emulate his father’s every action. However, Yitzchak did not content himself with that; he forged his own path in his Avodas Hashem.

We have seen that on the one hand, Yitzchak represents the mesora, not deviating from the path that his father had set. And, on the other hand, he possessed a totally different character to his father! How can we resolve these two aspects of Yitzchak? In reality there is no contradiction; All Jews are born into a line of tradition that goes back to Avraham Avinu; we are obligated to faithfully adhere to the instructions and attitudes that we receive from this line of mesora. A person cannot mechadesh his own set of values or hanhagos; there is a mesora that guides him how to live his life. But, at the same time, this does not mean that each person in the chain of mesora is identical in every way - there are many ways in which a person can express himself in the fulfillment of the mesora. The Chofetz Chaim zt”l asks why the Torah emphasizes that the Etz HaHcahim was davke in the middle (‘besoch’) of Gan Eden. He answers that there is one central point of truth but that there are numerous points surrounding it, each one standing at an equal distant from the centre. So too, there are many approaches to Judaism that emphasize different forms of Avoda and different character traits. However, as long as they remain within the boundaries of the mesora, then they are all of equal validity .

There was one Yeshiva in particular that stressed the idea that each person should not be forced into one specific mold - Slobodka. The Alter of Slobodka placed great stress on the uniqueness of each individual. He was very weary of employing highly charismatic teachers in his yeshiva for fear that they would overwhelm their students with their sheer force of personality . Rav Yerucham Levovitz zt”l, the great Mashgiach of the Mirrer Yeshiva, once visited the Alter. On the first day of his visit, the Alter reproved him so vehemently that the whole Yeshiva could hear the shouts from closed doors. This reproof continued day after day for nearly a week. What had upset the Alter? He felt that Reb Yerucham was so charismatic that he was turning the Mirrer bochrim into his ‘Cossacks’ - each one in Reb Yerucham’s image - rather than allowing each to develop their own unique expression .

This emphasis on encouraging a student to develop his individuality permeated the teachings of Slobodka talmidim. Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky zt”l, always emphasized the importance of independence in learning. While not denigrating the importance of a talmid’s devotion to his rebbe, he stressed that this should not prevent the student from developing independently his own powers of analysis and reaching his own conclusions. He used to say that Rav Baruch Ber Leibowitz zt”l, would have made even greater contributions to the understanding of the Torah if he had adopted his own original approaches in addition to developing the ideas of his Rebbi, Rav Chaim Soloveitchik zt”l. Reb Yaakov related that as a young man, Reb Baruch Ber destroyed all the chiddushim that he had written prior to studying under Reb Chaim .

Reb Yaakov adopted a similar approach in the area of hashkafa - he felt that if a person had a tendency towards a certain valid stream of Torah then he should not be prevented from looking into it even if it contrasted the traditional outlook adopted by his family. A family close to Reb Yaakov was shocked when the youngest of their seven sons informed them that he wanted to be a Skverer Chassid. They went together with the boy to Reb Yaakov expecting him to convince their son that boys from proper German-Jewish families do not become Chassidim. To their surprise, Reb Yaakov spent his time assuring them that it was not a reflection on them that their son wanted to follow a different path of Avodas Hashem. Obviously, their son had certain emotional needs which, he felt, could be filled by becoming a chassid and they should honor those feelings. Reb Yaakov even recommended a step more radical than the parents were willing to consider - sending the boy to a Skverer Yeshiva !

The idea that there are many different valid ways for an observant Jew to express himself is relevant to many areas of our lives, one is development of one‘s personality: There is a tendency in many societies for certain character traits to gain more praise than others. For example, being outgoing and confident is often seen as very positive, whilst being shy and retiring is often viewed in a negative light. An extroverted parent who has a more introverted child may be inclined to see his child’s quiet nature as a character flaw and try to pressure him to change his ways. However, the likelihood is that this will only succeed in making him feel inadequate. It is the parent’s avoda to accept that his child may be different from him, accept him for who he is and work with his strengths. Similarly a child may find it difficult to sit for long periods of time and focus on learning. If a parent or teacher places too great a pressure on the child to learn, then it is likely that when he grows up he will rebel . Even within the curriculum of learning a person may feel unsatisfied if he only learns Gemara all day long. Many people enjoy exploring other areas of Torah such as Navi, hashkafa and mussar. It may be advisable (with Rabbinic guidance) to encourage one’s children or talmidim with such leanings to learn these areas instead of making them feel inadequate for not learning Gemara to the exclusion of everything else . And as we have seen from the story with Reb Yaakov, there is no need to be afraid if one’s child or talmid chooses to express his Yiddishkeit in a different way from his parents. It should be noted that whilst chinch habanim is the area most effected by this message, it also applies greatly to our own Avodas Hashem. We too may experience feelings of inadequacy in some area of our lives because we do not ‘fit in’ with the consensus of the society that we live in. However, sometimes, we may be able to find more satisfaction in our Avodas Hashem, midos or learning, if we allow ourselves to express our strengths. Of course this should be done with guidance and strict adherence to the mesora.

What are the benefits of encouraging a person to express his individuality in Torah? We said earlier that the Yeshiva that most stressed this idea was Slobodka. If one were to look at the products of all the great Yeshivas he will see that Slobodka produced by far the greatest number of Gedolim . And what is striking about these great people is how different they were from each other. By stressing the uniqueness of each individual the Alter was able to bring the best out of each of his talmidim. If we can emulate him then we have a far greater chance of enabling ourselves, our children and our students to live happier and more successful lives.

NOACH AND AVRAHAM - PARSHAS NOACH

“These are the offspring of Noach, Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generations; Noach walked with G-d.” Noach was the greatest person in his time, the only one who deserved to be spared from the flood. And yet Noach is unfavorably compared to Avraham Avinu by the Rabbis in a number of places. What is the difference between these two great men?

Rashi brings a Midrash that contrasts Avraham and Noach. With regard to Noach, the Torah says “Noach walked with G-d.” This means that he needed help in his Avodas Hashem. But to Avraham, HaShem says “Walk before me.” This means that Avraham could strengthen himself on his own. The commentaries explain that Avraham was pro-active and self-motivated. He did not need external events to stimulate him to serve HaShem and do kindness. Noach needed external circumstances to push him forward in his righteousness.

Rav Eliyahu Dessler zt"l expands on this idea. He writes that Noach is called “ish tzaddik" (man of righteousness), whilst Avraham is “ish chessed" (man of kindness). Noach performed incredible acts of kindness in the ark, feeding hundreds of animals for several months. However, says Rav Dessler that this was only tzedek,(the right thing to do), meaning that he fulfilled his obligation. It did not stem from an overflowing desire to give, but was rather a reaction to the needs of others. Avraham, in contrast, did not perform kindness out of obligation, but because of a burning desire to give. This divergence between Noach and Avraham is not restricted to kindness in the physical realm, but also extends into the spiritual realm. The Seforno writes that Noach did rebuke the people in his generation but he did not go any further. “He did not teach them to know G-d and how to go in his ways.” Consequently, he did not possess enough merit to save the generation. In contrast Avraham went far beyond the call of duty to teach the world to know Hashem.

The commentaries also discuss why Noach’s great descendants, Shem and Ever, did not merit to attain Avraham’s greatness. The Rambam describes how Avraham fought against the idolatry prevalent in his times. “He began to call out in a loud voice to the whole world and taught them that there is one G-d in the world and it is He that one should serve… He would continually call out and gather the people from city to city and from kingdom to kingdom until he reached there, as it says, “and he called out in the name of Hashem the eternal G-d. And when the people would gather and ask him what he was preaching, he would teach to every one of them, each according to his ability, until he would bring them to the true way, until tens of thousands of people gathered to follow him.” The Raavad writes on this Rambam, “I am astonished, for Shem and ever were there at this time. how could they not protest [against the idolatry that surrounded them. The Kesef Mishnah answers, “Shem and Ever were teaching the way of Hashem to their students, but they did not rouse themselves to call and teach in the way that Avraham did. Because of this he rose to a higher level than they did.”

This seems difficult to understand. We know that Shem and Ever had a yeshivah in which they taught Torah for a very long time. Why then are they considered on a lower level than Avraham Avinu, to the extent that he is the spiritual father of the Jewish people, but they are not? We can answer this question with Rav Dessler’s principle. There are two ways to give. A person can be re-active, waiting for people who want to learn Torah and grow in their Yiddishkeit, or one can be pro-active, seeking out people who would not otherwise want to learn Torah or develop any kind of relationship with Hashem. Noach, Shem and Ever were limited to the first type of giving. This is a high level, but, as Rav Dessler explains, it does not qualify as true kindness. Avraham, however, was pro-active. He did not wait for people to come to him. He sought out people who did not even know that they were lacking anything and taught them about Hashem. This is true chessed. This is what caused Avraham to rise to a higher level than Noach, Shem and Ever.

Why would a person reach the level of reactive kindness but fail to progress to the higher level of giving pro-actively? The clue to this can be found in Noach’s name. We know that a person’s name teaches us about his essence. The word, 'noach' means 'comfortable'. It is not easy to take responsibility for something without first being called upon to do it. The negative inclination (yetser hara) will find numerous excuses to avoid taking on a challenging endeavor when the genuine reason for doing so is desire for comfort.

The great author of The Chovos Levavos reveals to us that he was subject to this very challenge. He writes in the introduction that after planning to write the sefer he changed his mind, citing a number of reasons. “I thought my powers too limited and my mind too weak to grasp the ideas. Furthermore, I do not possess an elegant style in Arabic, in which the book would have been written… I feared that I would be undertaking a task which would succeed [only] in exposing my shortcomings…Therefore I decided to drop my plans and revoke my decision.” However, he recognized that perhaps his motives were not completely pure. “I began to suspect that I had chosen the comfortable option, looking for peace and quiet. I feared that what had motivated the cancellation of the project had been the desire for self-gratification, which had driven me to seek ease and comfort, to opt for inactivity and sit idly by.” To the eternal benefit of Klal Yisroel he decided to write the Sefer and it is difficult to imagine Klal Yisroel being bereft of its spiritual guidance. The reasons that he initially cited in support of his decision not to write the sefer seem fair and logical. But he recognized that, on his level, they were tainted by a desire for comfort. We too have plausible reasons why we choose to ignore opportunities to help Klal Yisroel. But we must be extremely careful to make sure that we are not in fact just being lazy. Imagine how many great works or bold initiatives may never have reached fruition because of this yetser hara.

Another hindrance to pro-activity is misplaced bitachon. A person may have the hashkafa that Hashem will send him his tachlis on a plate. History proves that the great builders in Torah did not have this attitude. They looked at the problems in the world and decided to take action to rectify them without waiting to be told to do so. People such as Rav Aharon Kotler, the Ponevezher Rav and Rebbetsin Sarah Shenirer emulated Avraham Avinu and took the initiave to build Torah institutions. These institutions reinforced Torah, and enabled us to survive the spitirual onslaught of the Enlightenment and the physical onslaught of the Holocaust.

A less well-known example of a proactive builder is Joseph Rosenberg. He lived in the post- -Holocaust generation. He saw a world in which one particular mitzvo was largely ignored - the mitzvo of Shatnes. He single-handedly created Shatnes checking observatories and for several decades checked hundreds of thousands of garments for Shatnes. What was the key to his greatness? It was not necessarily his knowledge of Torah but it was his willingness to pro-actively go out and fix a problem he saw in Klal Yisroel .

In our generation, one does not have to look far to find opportunities to improve the word in some form. But he must not wait to be asked to step forward. If he does wait, the opportunity may never materialize. Hashem may want us to open our eyes and take action without being prompted to do so. As we have seen, there are people who have already done so, showing us that it is possible.

Noach was a great man but he is not the progenitor of the Chosen People. He did kindness, but only after he was instructed to. He rebuked the people, but only after Hashem had told him to do soas a reactive person, who needed external circumstance to arouse him to action. By contrast, Avraham Avinu did not need to be motivated to serve Hashem. He did not wait for people to come to him in order to teach them Torah. He reached the level of true chessed through great effort. It is incumbent upon us, his descendants, to emulate him and seek and pursue opportunities to make a difference to Klal Yisroel.

THE GREATNESS OF INNOVATION - BECHUKOSAI

In the midst of the devastating tochacha, Hashem comforts us, saying: “And I will remember My covenant with Yaakov, and even my covenant with Yitzchak and I will even remember my covenant with Avraham..[1]” The obvious question here is, why were the Avos mentioned in reverse order? Rashi, quoting the Toras Kohanim explains that the merit of Yaakov, who is the ‘smallest’ of the Avos should suffice, but if it does not, then Yitzchak’s merit should hopefully suffice, and if that is not enough, then Avraham’s great merit will surely be sufficient[2] - thus, Yaakov is mentioned first because the Avos are mentioned in ascending order of merit. There are two ways in which we can understand the meaning of Yaakov being the ‘smallest’ of the Avos: Some translate it to mean the ‘youngest’, but a number of commentaries write that it means he is the lowest in the spiritual sense.[3] The problem with this explanation is that Chazal tell us that Yaakov was the greatest of the Avos, the only one whose progeny was completely righteous, whereas Avraham and Yitzchak had descendants who would not merit to be part of the Jewish people. Accordingly, how can we understand that Yaakov’s merit in redeeming the Jewish people from their suffering is weaker than those of Avraham and Yitzchak? It also needs to be explained why Avraham is considered greater than Yitzchak in this context.

It seems that the fact that Yaakov may have been the most perfect of the Avos in terms of midos, does not necessarily mean that he had the greatest merit. Merit is derived from achievement in relation to the difficulty of one’s task - it is possible to argue that whilst Yaakov reached the highest level of the Avos, he did in fact have an easier task than his great predecessors. In what way was Yaakov’s task easier than that of Yitzchak and that of Yitzchak easier than Avraham’s? Avraham was born into a world of Avoda Zara - his great challenge was to create from nothing a whole new outlook and way of life - to begin a new epoch in history[4]. To do such a thing constituted an incredible test, because it meant that he had to fight against all the prevalent attitudes and lifestyles and begin something on a very lowly scale and slowly and patiently develop it. Yitzchak was born into a world in which the new outlook had already been created - he did not need to mechadesh any novel life approach. However, Rav Mattisyahu Salamon Shlita writes that he did have to be mechadesh one thing - the concept of mesorah; that a son faithfully follows the guidelines set by his father[5]. Yaakov, in contrast, did not have to begin a new religion or the concept of Mesorah - he clearly faced great challenges in his life but in this regard he seems to have had an easier task than his forebears. Thus, although Yaakov was the greatest of the Avos, his merit in redeeming the people from suffering is less[6].

Rav Salamon speaks at length about out how one of Avraham Avinu’s main strengths was his power of hischadshus - his ability to innovate[7]. He notes that in the Rambam’s description of Avraham’s contribution to the world it he uses the word, ‘maschil’ no less than five times in quick succession[8]. Rav Salamon writes that “Avraham was a ‘mashcil’, a person who began things. He was a revolutionary, a pioneer… He was the originator and founder of the Jewish people. Avraham was the first in everything he did. He had no father that he could follow, and thus, he was always breaking new ground.[9]”
When trying to emulate Avraham we traditionally strive to learn from his great mida of chesed. We learn from here that his ‘koyach hahischadhus’, his ability at initiating, is also a mida that needs to be developed.

The Cli Yakar also places great emphasis on the greatness of hischadshus. In Bereishis, the account of every day of the seven days of creation the Torah concludes with a description that it was ’good’ or ’very good’ with the exception of the second day. A number of explanations are given as to this anomaly - the Cli Yakar writes that nothing completely new was created on the second day, therefore, it cannot be described as ‘tov’[10]. It is apparent from this interpretation that something is described as good when it is associated with newness.

There are a number of ways in which the ability to innovate is important in our lives. It is natural for a person to get into a habit of how he conducts his life, with regard to many aspects of his life, including his growth in Torah and midos, his relationships, and his ability to create and build. There are times when it is beneficial to step back and assess whether there is a necessity for a new approach in these areas. New approaches often provide alternative ways of dealing with situations and can meet with great success. An example of this is told over by a leading educator in the area of Shalom Bayis. There was a woman who was highly dissatisfied with her husband’s behavior and eventually decided that she wanted a divorce. This educator suggested to her, that before she take such a drastic step, she should try a new approach - she should focus completely on her own behavior and strive to be as good a wife as possible. Within a very short time of following this instruction, she saw a drastic change in her husband. Her willingness to try a new approach was the key to a huge improvement in her marriage.

One of the most important areas in which the ‘koyach hahischadshus’ is so important is the creation and development of new ideas, movements, or organizations that can provide great benefit for Klal Yisroel. A tremendous example of this is that of Sara Shenirer zt”l - her idea of a Torah oriented educational structure was so revolutionary that it met with great opposition. Nonetheless, she had the vision and persistence to continue with her innovative idea and in doing so, had an incredible effect on the Jewish people.

Another proof that new beginnings can be very beneficial is that the yetser hara makes it very difficult to push through with a new start[11], which is the reasoning behind the concept that ‘kol hashchalos kashos’ - all beginnings are difficult. As well as taking on a new approach, it is essential to be willing to see it through to the end despite the challenges that one may face in the process.
Avraham Avinu may not be described as the ’greatest’ of the Avos, but in the area of hischadshus he certainly leads the way. May we all be zocheh to learn form him and make successful new beginnings when they are called for.
[1] Bechukosai, 26:42.
[2] Rashi, ibid. Torah Kohanim, 26:49.
[3] See Maskil L’David, 24:42; R’Yaakov M’Lisa (the author of Chavos Daas and Nesivos) quoted in B’shem Amru.
[4] Indeed the Gemara, Avoda Zara, 9a, says that Jewish history is divided into three epochs of two thousand years each - the first is the period of nothingness, the second is the period of Torah - that period begins with Avraham‘s efforts at spreading Torah throughout the world.
[5] Matnos Chaim, p.30.
[6] It should of course be noted that Yaakov surely placed challenges that would appear as incredibly daunting to any onlooker - we are merely positing that in relation to Avraham and Yitzchak, in the area of hischadshus, his task was easier.
[7] Ibid. p.29.
[8] Hilchos Avoda Zara, Ch.1, halacho 3.
[9] Ibid. p.29-30.
[10] Cli Yakar, Bereishis, 1:8.
[11] It is a useful life principle that anything that is genuinely important is difficult to complete because the yetser hara fights very strongly from preventing it from succeeding.

THE SOURCE OF BRACHA - TOLDOS

When famine strikes Eretz Yisroel, Yitzchak Avinu plans to go to Mitzrayim. However, Hashem instructs him to remain in Eretz Yisroel and go to the land of the Plishtim and Hashem assures him of great blessing: “I will increase your offspring like the stars of the heaven; and I will give to your offspring all these land; and all the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your offspring. Because Avraham obeyed My voice, and observed My safeguards (Mishmarti), My Commandments, My decrees and My Torahs.”

The commentaries differ on the meaning of the word, ‘mishmarti’ in the Torah’s description of Avraham’s righteousness. The Seforno offers a novel interpretation of ‘Mishmarti’. He writes that this refers to the trait ‘that is guarded (mishmeres) to me’, which is that of chesed, thus Hashem is praising Avraham for being so proficient in emulating Hashem’s own mida of chesed. The whole foundation of Hashem’s creation is chesed, and Avraham emulated this trait by doing the greatest possible chesed of giving others the opportunity to get close to Hashem.

The Seforno continues in the same section to address a very difficult problem with this passuk: On two occasions in the Parsha, Hashem blesses Yitzchak, but only in the merit of Avraham. The first is the passuk above and the second is after Yitzchak’s travails with the Plishtim; “.. I will bless you and increase your offspring because of Avraham my servant.” The Seforno contrasts this with both Avraham and Yaakov who were always blessed in their own merit and not in that of their fathers. He explains that Avraham and Yaakov were both involved in teaching others from early in their lives. Avraham’s exploits are well-known and Seforno writes with certainty that Yaakov taught people who came to the Yeshivas of Shem and Ever. Accordingly, they were blessed in their own merit throughout their lives. In contrast, up to this point, Yitzchak did not call out in the name of Hashem, and consequently did not merit to be blessed in his own merit. He is blessed in his own merit only after he emulates his father and does call out in the name of Hashem: “He built an altar there, and called in the name of Hashem.” Soon after, Avimelech approaches him to make peace and ends by calling him, the “Blessed of Hashem.” It is at this point, the Seforno writes, that Yitzchak is blessed in his own merit.

Rav Elyashiv shlita comments on the implication of this Seforno. Yitzchak Avinu was one of the three Avos, who was willing to give up his life for Hashem in the Akeida, and who was so holy that he could never leave Eretz Yisroel. Yet the Torah writes about him as if he has no merit until he calls out in the name of Hashem! Rav Elyashiv writes; “We see from here the incredible merit and reward that one receives for spreading Yiras Hashem to the people.”

It still needs to be understood why exactly Yitzchak’s great righteousness was not sufficient to earn him the right to be blessed in his own merit until he spread Hashem’s name. Rav Chaim Volozhin zt”l writes that ‘bracha’ means ribui (abundance). Thus, the purpose of bracha is to cause an increase or continuation in something. Based on this, my Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits Shlita explains that a person is only worthy of receiving the bracha of ribui if he himself contributes to causing ribui and continuity in the world by causing others to follow the Derech Hashem. Accordingly, despite all his great acts, Yitzchak only received blessing in his own merit when he himself contributed to the increase of people who would follow the derech Hashem.

The question remains as to why Yitzchak refrained from calling out in the name of Hashem until this point. Rav Elyashiv suggests that the explanation for this is that since his father had already spread awareness of Hashem, there was no need for him to do so. However, Rav Elyashiv points out, we see the great reward that Yitzchak later received for doing so even though his father had already done so.

We learn from here a lesson that is highly relevant in the world today - that the fact that there are some people who devote time and effort to spreading Torah does not exempt everyone else from also contributing in some form. A person may argue that since there are people already involved, there is no need for him to do so. The problems with this argument are twofold: Firstly, we see from the Seforno that in a person needs to be involved in bringing others close to Hashem for his own benefit and to be worthy of bracha. Secondly, there are a tremendously small number of people who are involved in any form of Kiruv rechokim (including part-time Kiruv, such as learning a few hours a week with a beginner or having secular people for Shabbos) in comparison to the numbers of secular Jews who are leaving Judaism in the millions. The only possible way to stem the tide is if every Jew takes upon himself to devote some amount of time to Kiruv.

Indeed a little known fact is that the Gedolim have demanded that every ben-Torah must contribute some of his precious time to being mekarev secular Jews: Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l issued a ‘call to action’ to yeshiva students in 1973. He cites how Moshe Rabbeinu was initially unwilling to lead the Jewish people, but that when it became clear that there was no-one else capable of the task, he undertook it with great vigor. Rav Moshe writes, “As Moshe responded to the voice of authority when it told him that he must, because there was no-one else, so too must our yeshiva students …. There are no others who are qualified for the task. Under such circumstances, Torah study must also be interrupted.” He concludes that “as in charity, where one has an obligation to give a tenth of his income to the poor, so must one spend one tenth of his time working on behalf of others, bringing them close to Torah. If one is endowed with greater resources, he must correspondingly spend more of his time with others.” Other Gedolim have issued similar ‘calls to action’. In Eretz Yisroel, Rav Wolbe zt”l exhorted avreichim to devote one night every week to visit the homes of secular families and show them the beauty of Torah and Yiddishkeit.

Great talmiday chachamim have always taken every opportunity to emulate Avraham Avinu’s efforts to bring people close to Hashem. The well-known Maggid Shiur, Rav Mendel Kaplan zt”l made great efforts to befriend and teach secular Jews whenever he encountered them. His outreach even extended to children. A non-religious secretary in the yeshivah once brought her nine-year old son with her to work. When Reb Mendel saw the little boy playing in the hall, he called him over, pointed to a Chumash and asked, “Do you know what this is?” “Sure” the boy answered, “it’s a Bible.” “No,” answered Reb Mendel, “this is a Chumash.” He then pulled up two chairs and sat with the boy for an hour, teaching him Chumash on a level that the child could understand and appreciate. Later that day someone asked him why he had devoted so much of his precious time to a nine-year old boy. Answered Reb Mendel, “I hope that I’ve a planted a seed that will grow years from now.” We may think, that we cannot have any positive effect on unaffiliated Jews, however one can never know what seeds he plants that may bloom in a seemingly unconnected way many years later. Rav Kaplan was a great talmid chacham who reached great heights in his own Torah learning and general righteousness. However, he recognized that this did not absolve him of his responsibility to look for opportunities to ‘call in the name of Hashem’.

We learn from the Seforno that even a great tzaddik is not worthy of bracha unless he spreads G-d awareness in the world. Rav Elyashiv further teaches us that there is no validity to the argument that others are already doing so is. May we all be zocheh to play our role in being vayikra b’shem Hashem.